Saturday’s editorial in Rech, September 15, is a virtual
exposition of the basic political principles of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party. What do these principles of
the main party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie amount
to now?

They amount to three points:
(1) “extension of the
franchise”;
(2) “radical reform of the Council of
State”[1]; and,
(3) “responsibility of the Ministry to the people’s
representatives”. It goes without saying that to this are added
freedom of association (coalitions) and all the other freedoms,
equality of nationalities, “restraint and slowing down”
of differentiation in the countryside, and so on and so
forth.

Readers should compare these “three points” of the
liberals with the “three points” of working-class democrats,
who have given an effective reply to the political question,
the labour question and the peasant question alike.
The actual source of all the evils and misfortunes, their
real “focus”, and the way out are indicated clearly and
explicitly by the “three points” of the working-class
democrats.

But the liberal platform—for, not nominally but in
substance, it is an election platform—of the Cadets is only
a wish for modest constitutional reforms. It differs very
little from the wishes of the Octobrists.

The main thing has been obscured; on the main thing
the liberal-monarchist bourgeois party has nothing to say.
The Cadets want “to win by modesty”, but then let us
recall that Messrs. Guchkovs have already tried modesty in
practice. And what was the result? The result was nil!

We want very little, the Cadets boast. But, gentlemen,
that “trump” has already been played by the Octobrists.
In all three Dumas, the Cadets and the Octobrists vied
with each other in assuring the “government” and the “
public” that they want very little, a modest minimum on the
European standard. The result is nil!

No, gentlemen, whether you list constitutional reforms
in three points or in twenty, your platform will be a dead
one. You can talk about constitutional reforms, without
appearing ridiculous, only where and when the foundations
and pillars of political liberty already exist, where and
when they are established, assured and stable.

You yourselves know that that is not yet the case in
Russia, and therefore your pious wishes do not show the people
a way out but mislead them with illusory hopes!

Notes

[1]Council of State—an advisory body in tsarist Russia, consisting
mainly of big landowners and senior officials appointed by the
tsar.